刑事诉讼庭前审查条款之重述——《刑事诉讼法》第186条的法教义学解释  

Reinterpretation of the Pre-trial Review Clauses—Legal Dogmatics Interpretation of the Article 186 in the Criminal Procedure Law

作　　者：王震 WANG Zhen(Hohai University Law School,Nanjing,Jiangsu 211100,China)

机构地区：[1]河海大学法学院,江苏南京211100

出　　处：《时代法学》2021年第6期86-95,共10页Presentday Law Science

基　　金：中央高校基本科研业务费专项资金资助(项目编号:2018B06614)。

摘　　要：通常认为《刑事诉讼法》第186条确立了形式审查而有别于旧法的实质审查。然而,既有解释使得庭前审查退变为单纯的庭前准备活动,造成立法体系内部的冲突紧张,且致使审查结果缺乏法律效力。合理解释的价值立场在于发挥庭前审查防止检察机关滥行起诉和维系控审分离诉讼架构的制度功能,形塑审判中心主义的控审关系。通过文义解释,庭前审查条款宜被解释为法院在全面审查完案卷、证据等完整呈现指控事实材料后,综合判断起诉书中指控的犯罪事实是否明确。基于离谱控制的目的,“明确”的内涵宜作“证据之形式上有罪”的解释。解释还有必要强化庭前审查结论的法律效力,完善法院针对不同情形的审查处理方式。It is generally believed that Article 186 of the Criminal Procedure Law establishes formal examination,which is different from substantive examination.However,this kind of interpretations have turned the pre-trial review into a pure pre-trial preparation activity,causing conflicts and tensions within the legislative system,and making the review results lack of effect.The value of reasonable interpretation is to play the system function of pre-trial review to prevent indiscriminately prosecuting and maintain the separation of prosecution and trial,and to shape the trial-centered relationship.Through textual interpretation,the Pre-trial Review Clause should be interpreted as the court after a comprehensive review of the case files,evidence and other materials that fully present the facts of the charges,comprehensively judge whether the criminal facts charged in the indictment are clear.For the purpose of outrageous control,the connotation of“clear”should be interpreted as“prima facie”.The interpretation also needs to strengthen the legal effect of the conclusions of the pre-trial review and improve the handling methods for different situations.

关 键 词：审判中心主义 全案移送 庭前审查 形式审查 实质审查 

分 类 号：D718.2[政治法律—政治学]